



i3si 



SPEECH 



OF 



HON. WM. CULLOM, OF TENNESSEE. 



ON THE 



NEBMSKA AND KANSAS BILL, 



IN 



THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 11, 1854. 



^j^ WASHINGTON: 

' PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 

1854. 



NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 



The Housebeing in the CommiUee of the Whole 
on the state of the Union — 

Mr.CULLOM said: 

Mr. Chairman: I am not entirely without 
legislative experience, but I think the House will 
attest ray indisposition to occupy their time in the 
discussion of any question, unless I am impelled 
by a high sense of public duty to do so; and in 
the brief hour which I shall consume on this oc- 
casion, let me assure you 1 am not prompted by 
personal vanity, for I am one of those v/ho be- 
lieve that the public interest is generally best pro- 
moted by a silent vote, and a punctilious attend- 
ance on the business of the House. I regret that 
a sense of public duty impels me upon this occa- 
sion to depart from what has been my usual 
habit, not only in this body, but also in the delib- 
erative assemblies in which 1 have served in my 
own State. The importance of this question, 
which has thus been unexpectedly thrust before 
the country, furnishes my excuse, however, for 
troubling the committee with any remarks at 
this time. 

Mr. Chairman, when I took leave of my con- 
stituents, when I bade farewell, for a time, to the 
people of Tennessee, and came here to mingle my 
humble labors with those of the chosen Represent- 
atives of the American people, in the needful 
legislation of our then happy, harmonious, and 
prosperous country, little did I think that at such 
a period of general repose, when all sections of 
the Union were united in the bonds of fraternal 
friendship, when all parties had solemnly cov- 
enanted and agreed to cease the agitation of sec- 
tional questions, I should be called upon to take 
part in the discussion of this ill-advised and dan- 
gerous measure; this firebrand, thrust upon our 
deliberations. Sir, where is the great project of 
the Pacific railroad, a measure demanded no less 
by the public interest than by the public judg- 
ment r I came here prepared to contribute my 
humble aid to the consummation of that great 
work; but it is to be thrown in the background. 
The country was looking with great interest to 
the needful improvement of our rivers and har- 



bors, and I had fondly hoped that something 
might be done to facilitate and give security to the 
commerce on the great lakes and rivers of the 
West. I had hoped, too, for a fairand just distri- 
bution of the public domain, now amounting to 
twelve or fifteen hundred millions of acres, and 
which has heretofore been granted in a partial 
and unequal manner to the more favored States. 
I had hoped that, by a united effort, we might 
have devised some plan, equitable and just to all, 
of distributing the public lands, or the proceeds 
thereof, among the States for works of internal 
improvement and to advance the cause of educa- 
tion; but in this, too, my hopes, and the hopes of 
my constituents, have been sadly disappointed by 
the untimely introduction of this unfortunateques- 
tion. The numerous private bills upon your Cal- 
endar, founded upon just and honest claims, 
including the French spoliation bill, are all to be 
postponed; all sound and useful legislation is to be 
suspended by this nefarious project — the work of 
politicians, and the effect of which is to strangle 
the legitimate legislation of the country for their 
personal and party aggrandizement. 1 believe 
this before high Heaven, and I should be a coward 
if I did not assert it and proclaim itto the country, 
I should not be a Tennessean if 1 did not assert 
it. 

Several Members. Good ! Good ! 

Mr. CULLOM. I should not be a worthy de- 
scendant of my mother State, Kentucky, if I did 
not here, in my place, denounce this scheme as a 
plot against the peace and quiet of the country, 
whether so designed or not. 

Mr. Chairman, Kansas and Nebraska! Ne- 
braska and Kansas! is the cry. These Halls are 
made vocal with the sound of these cant phrases. 
We are told that territorial governments must be 
given to those Territories, although Mr. Many- 
penny reports there are but three citizens in both 
of them. At the .last session of Congress we re- 
fused to give them one government, but now we 
are told that two territorial organizations are )ie- 
cessary. We are told, furthermore, that now the 
eighth section of the act of 1820, called the Missouri 



compromise, must he repealed; a measure which 
was the work of our patriotic fathers, most of 
whom have now descended to the tomb; a meas- 
ure which was passed in times of great public 
peril, and when tiie Union was in imminent dan- 
ger, to quiet and assuage the angry feelings which 
sectional strife had engendered, and which did, 
happily, calm and subdue the sectional animosi- 
ties of the day, and cement anew the bonds of our 
Union; a measure of such happy results that our 
fathers might v/ell pledge their honor for its faithful 
observance, as they did by accepting and voting 
for it. The bill now before this House seeks to 
repudiate their plighted faith, and to pull down the 
work of their hands, which has stood as a monu- 
ment of their wisdom and patriotism for thirty-four 
years; which has been cheerfully acquiesced in 
by all sections of the Confederacy, and for which 
the pure men of 182U have been canonized in the 
liearts of the American people. This great meas- 
ure of pacification is now, for mere party pur- 
poses, and party and personal advancement, to be 
trampled under foot; and gentlemen come here 
witli their books dog-eared to make shrewd 
speeches upon the question, and to file their spe- 
cial pleas in justification of this mischievous and 
uncalled for assault upon the time-honored com- 
promise of 1820. I proclaim here to-day that 
this Nebraska bill presents the naked question 
of repmliation or no re-piidiution of the faith and 
honor of the South, plighted by the act of 1820. 
You may talk to me about the bad faith of the 
North, i do not come forward, on this occasion, 
to defend the Nortli. I am here to defend south- 
ern honor; and I would be the first to vindicate 
southern rights whenever and wherever violated 
or assailed. But I repeat, that the question now 
is, will we stand by the covenant of our fathers, 
by observing the compromise of 1820, and thereby 
maintain southern honor, the public tranquillity, 
and the integrity of the Union; or, shall we de- 
cide that the flood-gates of agitation shall be re- 
opened, with all the evil consequences which must 
flow from it, to sav nothing of the danger to the 
stability of the Union itself? Who can hesitate 
as to the side of such a question on which patri- 
otism and good faith demand that we shall array 
ourselves? And, for what, 1 ask, is this proposi- 
tion of repeal to be sustained ? Is it to restore 
rights to the South which it lost by the act of 
1820? Not so; for all agree that slavery cannot 
be maintained among the lileak hills of Nebraska, 
or on the barren plains of Kansas. It cannot ad- 
vance any interest of the North; for all agree that 
these Territories must, from their climate, soil, 
and geographical position, be free. Who, then, 
is this exciting and dangerous movement to bene- 
fit? Your politicians. This bill, sir, should he 
upon the Private Calendar, and the title of it 
should be so amended as to read, " A bill to make 
great men out of small ones, and to sacrifice the 

Eublic peace and prosperity upon the altar of po- 
tical ambition." Sir, I protest against my con- 
stituents being used as a spring-board to throw 
vaulting politicians into high positions. 

Mr. Chairman, I hope to be respectful to all, 
for I can say, in all candor, that I have no unkind 
feeling towards any member of either branch of 
Congress; but I have a high public duty to per- 
form, and though 1 v/ould treat respectfully all 
those connected with this question, whether 



agreeing with or differing from me, still I v/ould 
rather tread upon the outer vers:e of parliamentary 
rule than, by a tame submission, be brought to 
the crumbling verge of a dissevered Union. I 
should be an unworthy and faithless sentinel if, 
from motives of false modesty and timid forbear- 
ance, I refrained from sounding the alarm, fore- 
seeing, as I do, the baleful consequences which 
must ensue from the ado|ition of this measure. 
Let the country rise up as one man and frown 
down this attem])t to advance individual and 
party objects, under the flimsy pretext of doing 
justice to the South, when it can only jeopard a 
nation's peace; I repeat, sir, it can only serve for 
personal and party purposes. 

Mr. Chairman, let me ask you, and let me ask 
every member here, if a voice or a petition has 
come up from any quarter of this Union demand- 
ing a repeal of that ancient compromise? I have 
heard no voice from my constituents, nor from the 
State which I in part represent, demanding its 
repeal. No public meeting of the people, no pri- 
mary assembly, no convention, no legislative body 
has called for this measure. No individual citizen 
has invoked your interference in this matter to 
break up and trample down that compromise of 
1820. I demand here, this day, to know if a sin- 
gle voice from the people had reached this Hall 
demanding a repeal of the Missouri compromise 
before the introduction of this baleful measure? 
Now, sir, we do hear this call, but not from the 
people; and it sounds on our ears like a death- 
knell. 

But it is said that the North has volunteered this 
offer of a repeal of the Missouri compromise to 
the South. I demand to know, in behalf of my 
constituents and my common country, v/ho exe- 
cuted a power of attorney to the Senator from Illi- 
nois, the author of this bill, to make this offer, to 
reopen the fountain of bitter waters, and to renew 
the dangerous agitation which has heretofore well 
nigh severed this glorious Union ? 

If I may be allowed to borrow the language of 
the eloquent and chivalrous gentleman from Lou- 
isiana, [Mr. Hunt,] I will say that the South 
knows how to take care of its own honor, and 
to protect its own rights, v/henever it considers 
them to be in danger. This movement was not 
authorized by the North, judging from the remon- 
strances on your table; and from the recent demon- 
strations in popular meetings and in the popular 
elections, I feel assured it was not authorized by 
the North. It had not been even dreamed of, so far 
as I can learn, except by a single mind, and that 
the mind of a northern man, and that man a dis- 
appointed presidential aspirant in 1852 ! Let the 
whole cqjintry remember that there is the start- 
\ ing point, the beginning corner. I repeat, that 
the author of this movement was a defeated, or, 
rather, a rejected presidential aspirant in 1852. 
Mark it; not as a " fore and aft," but as a begin- 
ning corner. [Laughter.] How does it happen 
that this gentleman is so tenacious of southern 
rights and southern honor? How does it happen 
i that he loves the South more than the South loves 
itself? How does it happen that out of the whole 
South, no one had been found who loved the South 
so much as the Senator from Illinois? Think 
how many bold, chivalrous, and patriotic sons the 
southern States have sent up to Congress during 
the last thirty-four years, and yet they have suf- 



5 



fered this old compromise to rest upon the statute- 
book, and have never so much as asked its repeal. 
But now a little presidential capital is needed, and 
1 am required to vote for its repeal, right or wrong, 
or be denounced and traduced, perhaps, by dem- 
agogues, for not doing what all my predecessors 
for thirty-four years have failed to do; and a tre- 
mendous eflbrt is being made to lash the South 
into a furious passion about a law which the South 
voted tor and has acquiesced in for so long a pe- 
riod of time. 

But, we have found another northern man with 
strong southern feelings. Ah ! we have tried such 
before. Mr. Van Buien avowed himself to be a 
northern man with southern feelings, when he 
wanted southern votes for the Presidency. We 
are making a small experiment with another of 
the same sort just now, who was so southern in 
his feelings that it was thought almost treasonable 
to support General Scott, a southern man by birth 
and education, in opposition to him. Weil, after 
the votes of the people are recorded, and the high 
position attained, we soon see who are his bed- 
fellows. He calls around him a piebald Cabinet, 
ring streaked and speckled, embracing every ex'- 
treme doctrine, and every ism known in the coun- 
try; and gives the prime offices to Pree-Soilers, 
as we learn from the speeches of his own parly 
on the floor of Congress, to the exclusion of the 
true national men of that party, who have stood 
firmly by the compromises of 1850 and the Union. 
You will, therefore, pardon me, for a natural dis- 
trust of those who profess such unnatural affec- 
tion for the South. If, indeed, these northern 
champions of southern interests really feel so much 
attachment for the South, we prefer that they 
should husband their strength until a practical 
opportunity offers to do us sot^ie substantial good. 
The lender they make now is a v;orth!ess boon — 
worse than nothing. It promises nothing but 
strife and sectional controversy; and I am re- 
quired to turn agitator for the miserable purpose 
of ministerins; to the ambition of your political 
aspirants. This, sir, I will not do for your little 
giants nor your big giants. [Laughter.] I wish 
it to be distinctly understood, that I am speaking 
of the bill of the Senate. 

As to the bill which has been reported by the 
honorable gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Richard- 
son,] it^is but an echo of that which has passed 
the Senate. I know it is not the intention of 
its friends to pass it. They will not honor the 
chairman of the Committee on Territories of this 
House with the paternity of a great measure like 
this. It is the distinguished Senator from Illinois 
[Mr. Douglas] to whose honor the organization 
of these Territories is to redound. He is the 
great Sanhedrim of Illinois. [Laughter.] 1 have 
scarcely read or thought of the bill introduced into 
the House, as it is well known that the Senate bill 
is the one upon which the struggle is to be made. 

Now, sir, as the Senator from Illinois seems pre- 
pared to out-Herod Herod, and out-Southern the 
South, in the defense of southern interests, let us 
see if there is any mode by which we can test tlie 
value of his friendship for the South. I have a 
faint recollection of having read some scraps of 
law atone period of my life, but, being somewhat 
rusty in my legal knowledge, I will appeal to the 
distinguished gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. Ben- 
Tox,] who has had great parliamentary experi- 



ence, and is withal an eminent lawyer, if there 
is not a rule of law, that when the meaning of a 
statute is ambiguous, you may, in construing it, 
look to the circumstances tl'.at surrounded the Le- 
gislature at the time of its passage, and take into 
view the preamble and context? 

Mr. BENTON assented. 

Mr. CULLOM. I supposed that such was the 
law; and as I have great difficulty in ascertaining 
the real meaning of this bill, owing to the ambi- 
guity of its provisions, I presume the court and 
the jury — the people who will finally decide this 
cause — will find great aid in making u|i their 
verdict from the application of this rule of inter- 
pretation. I propose, therefore, to examine the 
surrounding circumstances in order to find out the 
meaning and intent of those who have originated 
this measure, and why the Senator from Illinois 
became godfather to this premature bantling by 
which the Missouri compromise is to be repealed 
as an outrage upon southern rights and a grievous 
burden which the South can no longer bear. 
How long that Senator has labored under these 
convictions, let the record show. In 1845, when 
Texas was annexed, the Missouri compromise 
line was extended through the territory of Texas. 
That extension received the Senator's vote, and it 
became the law of the land. Again, in 1848, the 
Senator proposed to insert, and voted for, a clause 
prohibiting slavery, according to the principle of 
the Missouri compromise, in the bill to establish 
a territorial government for Oregon. He did not 
then think the eighth section of the act of 1820 
unconstitutional, and an abomination in the sight 
of God and man. No, sir, the scales had not 
then fallen from his eyes. Then he thought the 
Missouri compromise a very proper measure to 
be applied both to Texas and Oregon. Let us see 
what his 0]5inion was in 1849. I will give his 
own words, in addressing his constituents that 
year at Springfield, in his own State. Here they 
are: 

" In 1?48 the f]iie?tion arose again in a new shapp upon 
the propn^ilion to eslablisli a tprritnrial governnienl in Ore- 
eon, containing a provision proliibiting slavery in the Terri- 
lory while it should reniain a Territory, and leaving the 
people to do as they pleased, when they should he called 
upon to form a State constitution, preparatory to their ad- 
mission into the Union. A brief discussion took place 
upon this branch of the subject, elicitins; very little interest, 
and creating no excitement, for the reason tliat it was well 
known that the people of Oregon had already established a 
provisional government, in wliich they had unanimously 
prohibited and excluded the institution of slavery, and for 
the further reason that the whole of the Territory was situ- 
ated far north of the line known as the ' Missouri compro- 
mise.' The Missouri compromise had then been in prac- 
tical operation for about a quarter of a century, and had 
received the sanction anda))probation ofmenof all parties, 
in every section of the Union. It had allayed all sertional 
jealousies and irritations growing out of this vexed ques- 
tion, and harmonized and tranqnilized the whole country, 
[t had given to Henry Clay, as its prominent champion, 
the proud sobriqwet of the ' Great Pacificetor,' and by 
that title, and for that service, his political friends had rer 
peatcdly appealed to the people to rally under his standard 
as a presidential candidate, as the man who had exhibited 
the patriotism and the power to suppress an unholy and 
treasonable agitation, and preserve the Union. He was 
not aware that any man or any party, from any section of 
the Union, had ever urged as an objection to Jlr. Clay that 
he was the great champion of the Missouri compromise. 
On the contrary, the etibrt was made by the opponents of 
Mr. Clay to prove that he was not entitled to the exclusive 
merit of that great patriotic measure, and that the honor 
was equally due to others as w-ell as him, for securing its 
adoption; that it had its origin in the hearts of all patriotic 
men who desired to preserve and perpetuate the blessings 



6 



of our glorious Union — an oiipin akin to that of the Con- 
stitution of the United States, conceived in the same spirit 
of fraternal afl'ection, and calculated to remove forever the 
only danger which seemed to threaten, at some distant day, 
to sever the social bond of union. All the evidences of 
public opinion at that day seemed to indicate that this com- 
promise iiad become canonized in the hearts of the Amer- ; 
ican people, as a sacred thing, which no ruthfess hand 
would ever be reckless enough to disturb." 

The Senator then boldly asserted that the Mis- 1 
souri conipiomise had been in practical operation 
for about a quarter of a century, and had received 
the sanction and approbation of men of all parties ' 
in every section of the Union; that it had allayed 
all sectional jealousies and irritations growing out : 
of this vexed question, and harmonized and tran- i 
quilized the whole country, that it had given to 
Henry Clay, as its prominent champion, the proud i 
sobriquet of the " Great Pacificator," and he con- , 
eluded this glowing narrative in the following 
words: i 

" All the evidences of public opinion at that day seemed ! 
to indicate that the compromise had become canonized in : 
the hearts of the American people as a sacred thins, which ! 
no ruthless hand would ever be reckless enough to disturb." 

And yet his own is the " ruthless hand" that is ' 
now " reckless enough," to use his own language, | 
to disturb the measure which he then declared had i 
received the sanction and approbation of men of 
all parties, had allayed all sectional jealousies and 
irritations, had harmonized and tranquilized the ! 
country, and had become canonized in the hearts ! 
of the American people ! I 

These were just anti noble sentiments, and could, 
with equal truth and propriety, have been repeated '■ 
the day the Senator introduceti the bill which has 
revived those very jealousies and irritations which, 
he formerly shovi'ed us, were healed by the Mis- 
souri compromise. This is one of the numerous 
circumstances to which I call the attention of the 
committee, and of the country, as showing con- 
clusively the character, end, and object of this 
plot. He that runs may read, and reading, cannot 
fail to understand. 

But I have not done yet with the author of this 
bill. Not only did he speak as I have' quoted in 

1849, but in 1850 he proposed to extend this same 
Missouri compromise line, now become so iniqui- 
tous, through the territory acquired from Mexico 
to the Pacific ocean. Had not the Senator had 
ample opportunity, during his long legislative 
career and frequent investigations of this question, 
to have discovered the enormity of the Missouri 
compromise, if that was its character.' And yet 
he persisted in recomtnending the adoption of tiiis 
notorious eighth section of the act of 1820, on every 
occasion which arose, as late as 1850. If the com- 
mittee v/ill pardon me, I v.'illshow that Mr. Doug- 
las recommends, in his report to the Senateas late 
as the 4th of January, 1854 — yes, sir, 1854 — that 
the Missouri compromise should not be repealed; ^' 
and yet I, and those who think with me, are coin- j 
plained of, because we believe now what the author 
of the bill himself believed as late as January last: M 
nam.ely, that the Missouri compromise should not j 
be disturbed ! But let me quote the language of |' 
the Senator's report. Here is an extract from it: ' 

"Your coSimittee do not feel themselves called upon to 
enter into a discussion of those controverted questions. 
They involve the same grave issues which produced the 
agitation, the sectional strife, and the fearful struggle of 

1850. As Congress deemed it wise and prudent to refrain 
from deciding the matters in controversy fhe>i, either by 
afTirming or repealing the Mexican laws, or by an act de- 



claratory of 'he true intent of the Constitution, and the 
extent of the protection afforded by it to slave property in 
the Territories, so your conuniuee are not prepared now to 
recommend a departure from the course pursued upon that 
memoralde occasion, either by tiffirming or repealing the 
eighth section of the Missouri act, or by any act declaratory 
of the meaning of the Constitution in respect to the lecal 
points in dispute. Your committee deem it foriunale for 
the peace of the country and the security of the Union that 
the controversy then resulted in the adoption of llie com- 
promise measures, which the two great political parlies, 
with singular unanimity, have affirmed as a cardinal article 
of their faith, and proclaimed to the v.orld &sa final settle- 
ment of the controversy and an end of the agitation. Due 
respect, therefore, for the avowed opinions of Senators, as 
well as a proper sense of patriotic duty, enjoins on your 
committee ihe propriety and necessity of a strict adherence 
to the principles, and even a literal adoption of the enact- 
ments of that adju.-tment in all their territorial bills, so far 
as the same are not locally inapplicable." 

These, sir, were the views of Mr. Douglas, 
incorporated in his report to the Senate as late as 
the 4th day of January, 1854. He there expresslv 
deprecates any expression of opinion by Congress 
as to the constitutional rights of either section of 
the Union under the act of 1820, or even under the 
Constitution itself; because, he says, they involve 
the same grave issues which produced the agita- 
tion, the sectional strife, and the fearful struggle 
of 1850; and as Congress then refrained from 
deciding the matters in controversy, either by i 
affirming or repealing the Mexican laws prohib- 
iting slavery, so the committee were not prepared 
now to recommend a departure from the course 
pursued upon that memorable occasion, either by 
affirming or repealing the eishth section of the Mis- 
souri act. The Senator, then, having a clear con- 
ception of the dire consequences which would flow 
from a repeal of the Missouri compromise, warned 
the country that such a course would reopen agita- 
tion, excite sectional controversy, and disturb the 
peace of the country. Then it Vv-as not proper to 
repeal the act of 1820, because such a repeal would 
revive agitation; now, he insists, it is im.portant 
to repeal it to put down agitation. T/ieri it was 
not proper to repeal the act of 1820, because the 
Congress of 1850 refrained from repealing the 
Mexican laws — leaving the question of slavery to 
be decided by the judicial department of the Gov- 
ernment under the Constitution; now we are told 
that we must repeal the act of 1820 to make these 
acts consistent with the legislation of 1850. Oh " 
consistency, what a jewel thou art ! 

Here we have Mr. Douglas advocating the 
Missouri compromise throughout his whole legis- 
lative career, down to the fourth day of January, 
1854, urging the most conclusive, weighty, and 
solemn reasons against its repeal; holding up so 
vividly before the country the inevitable rnischief 
which would flow from it, and then suddenly, 
within a few hours, or at most a few days, he 
throws all his previous experience and scruples 
to the winds, turns a complete somersault, and be- 
comes the vociferous champion of repeal ; one day 
shrinking back with trepidation and alarm at the 
mere contemplation of the terrible consequences 
of repealing the Missouri compromise; the next, 
he becomes its open advocate, and is prepared to 
denounce, and does denounce, every man. North 
and South, who will not go with him, as a foe to 
the public tranquillity, a foe to the principle of 
"squatter sovereignty," and unfaithful to the 
Constitution. Well, this is the greatest feat of 
political ground-and-Iofty tumbling, so far as my 
memory serves me, that 1 have ever seen, heard, 



or read of in history. But how is it to be ac- 1 
counted for? The public will be curious to know j 
something of the secret and mysterious, yet pow- j 
erful causes, which must have combined to pro- i 
duce a result so far out of the common track of 
political tergiversation and blundering. I know 
of no better clue to the mystery than to recur 
to those surrounding circumstances which, like 
the preamble and context of a statute, in helping 
to discover its true meaning, may enable the pub- ; 
lie to arrive at some satisfactory conclusion as 
to the secret and unrevealed agencies which may 
have led to this most extraordinary, not to say , 
miraculous, conversion. 1 hope, at least, to be, 
able to present facts sufficient to enable the jury — 
the people — to make up a just verdict upon the 
question. From some cause or other, we know! 
that a sudden change has come over the spirit of; 
the Senator's dream; and, though it is true that the '.'' 
ways of Providence are past finding out, I do not ;i 
believe that the ways of politicians are so deeply i: 
hidden from human ken that we cannot trace, in !| 
their devious courses, the secret promptings which : j 
guide them. First, it is notorious, and no man^; 
can deny it, that, at the period of this conversion, j 
we had a weak and tottering Administration, reel- 1 j 
ing under the blows laid on from every quarter — [ 
north, south, east, and west — for its gross disre- 1, 
gard of the platform upon which it came into | 
power, and of the just claims of the conservative 
portion of the Democratic party; taking to its|- 
close embrace the two most pernicious factions : 
North and South, and pouring into the laps of" 
Free-Soilers and Abolitionists at the North, and of , 
the Secessionists and fire-eaters at the South — I 
the Treasury pap and patronage at its command — ' 
to the almost total exclusion of the compromise 
men, both North and South. The Administration ! \ 
got into great straits from this course, and the] 
Democratic party was threatened with fatal dissen- 1 j 
sions; suspicions got abroad among the compro- i 
mise men at the North, and the Union party at ! 
the South, that General Pierce himself was " no | 
better than he should be. " The Senator from Illi- 1 
nois, seeing this state of things, thought he had a 
good chance to do somethinghandsome for himself, i 
and at the same time to relieve the Democratic |, 
party from the suspicions which had attached to 1 
its head, and ward off the dangers which threatened ; 
its ascendency. Some new and exciting move- \ | 
ment was necessary to divert the public attention 
from theconductof the Administration. The Sen- ; 
ator from Illinois was the man for the occasion. [', 
He did not wait to be bidden by the Administra- 
tion. Inlookingoverthe whole ground, he thought 
the readiest way of creating a counter-excitement, j 
to save the Administration and the Democratic 
party, in the success of which he had an interest, I 
would be to get up a row on the slave question. 
This is the true history of this movement. But 
the Senator did not think it necessary, in order to i 
carry out this nefarious scheme, to repeal the ^ 
Missouri compromise, as is evident from his report 
of the 4th of January. Oh, no, he would not do 
that. No " ruthless hand" would dare do that; 
but he would go so far as to declare it " Inoper- , 
ative" by force of the principles recognized in the 
legislation of 1850. As a part of the history of 
this matter, it will be remembered that the Admin- ' i 
istration took ground in favor of this provision in i 
the bill of the 4th of January, and in favor of the ij 



I reasons assigned in the report against the repeal 
I of the Missoui'i compromise. The Washington 
Union, the organ of the Administration, cameout 
and indorsed, without reservation, both the bill 
and the report of the 4th of January; and when a 
Senator from Kentucky [iMr. Dixon] introduced 
an amendment to repeal the Missouri compromise 
in direct terms, the same organ denounced him as 
being in league with the Senator from Massachu- 
setts, [Mr. Sumner,] an out and out Abolitionist, 
who had offered an amendment affirming the 
validity of the Missouri compromise. The Wash- 
ington Union, I repeat, denounced both Dixon 
and Sumner, the one for proposing the repeal, and 
the other the affirmance of the Missouri compro- 
mise. The editor of that paper could see nothing 
else in those opposite propositions but the evi- 
dence that the authors of them had formed an un- 
holy alliance to break down the Administration 
and the great Democratic party; and he called 
lustily on the true men of the country to come 
to the rescue, and maintain the time-honored 
compromise of 1820. But when Mr. Douglas 
found — I hope it is not unparliamentary to men- 
tion his name, though 1 really feel that I ought to 
ask pardon for doing so, [laughter] — that the 
North did not approve his incipient movement, 
and that the South viewed it with distrust, he saw 
that his scheme would be a failure unless he could 
hit upon some new tack. He had supposed that 
he had made his bait tempting enough to catch 
the South, and he did not think that the people of 
the North would take offense. He thought he 
had laid his plans deep enough to dupe both the 
North and the South. But, lo, and behold! the 
South refused to accept the delusive offer. They 
were a little afraid that there was "a cat in the 
meal," and it turned out, as I will show, that they 
were not mistaken. [Laughter.] When this little 
Magician of the North, No. 2, found that he had 
overreached himself, that he was fairly caught 
in his own net, he concluded that it would be 
about as well to die for a grown sheep as for a 
lamb, [laughter,] and in his amended bill of the 
tv/enty-third day of January, he made his second 
advance towards a direct repeal of the Missouri 
compromise. Still he was not quite bold enough 
to write down the word "repeal." He thought 
it would do to say that the eighth section of the act 
of 1820 was superseded by the principles of the 
compromise of 1850, and was, therefore, " inop- 
erative." The Administration approved and sym- 
pathized with the design of the Senator from Illi- 
nois in his first movement, and perceiving that it 
was about to prove abortive, came forward and 
patted him on the back, saying : "Go it, little gi- 
ant; go it a little stronger; set your thumb lancet 
a little deeper, and let all the blood out of the act 
of 1820." [Much laughter.] See the Senator's 
giant stride when he is thus backed by the Ad- 
ministration ! He now comes forward, and, by 
additional amendments, demands a full repeal of 
the Missouri compromise, denouncing it as an act 
of gross injustice to the South, and unfit to stand 
longer upon the statute-book. 

Here, Mr. Chairman, I cannot refrain from re- 
peating what I have before stated as to the ante- 
cedents of the Senator from Illinois upon this ques- 
tion. The Senator has always supported this 
same odious, unjust, and now unconstitutional 
measure, when he had an opportunity of doing so. 



8 



Even in 1850, he proposed to extend the com- 
promise line of 1820 to the Pacific. Then it was 
highly just and proper; then it was canonized in 
the hearts of the American people. Yes, Mr. 
Chairman , the Senator from Illinois had then a very- 
proper estimate of the men of 1820; and truly, in 
those days, there were g-ian^s in the land. But now 
we are told that the Missouri compromise of 1820, 
which I have been taught to revere as a sacred 
thing, was unjustly forced upon the South by the 
North, and that, therefore, the South is not bound 
in good faith longer to abide by it. I will tell you 
how it was forced upon the South, and I want 
the whole country to understand its history. It 
was passed by a majority of southern votes, 
indeed, with hardly a dissenting voice from the 
South, in the Senate, and by a majority of south- 
ern members in the House of Representatives. 
It was claimed, at the time, by the South as a 
southern triumph, and under it the South has 
enjoyed unmolested, for this long period, all the 
territory south of 36° 30' as slave territory. The 
North now asks us to perform our part, of the 
contract. Can we honorably refuse to do so? Do 
you urge as a reason why the South should be 
absolved from this covenant, that it was an unjust 
bargain ? Sir, it is one that our fathers made. 
What dutiful son, receiving an inheritance from a 
deceased and venerated father, encumbered with 
trusts and liabilities binding in honor, would con- 
tinue to enjoy the estate, but repudiate, upon 
technical grounds, the obligations contracted by 
his ancestor? For one, I v/ould not. I am not 
here to draw subtle distinctions, and to indulge in 
special pleading. This is a family question, be- 1 
tween brethren of the same Confederacy, and I 
choose to place it upon its broadest merits. We 
are told that the North themselves have repudiated 
this compromise. Havethey? If so, I am not here 
to defend them; for I am as southern in my feelings 
as a man ought to be, to be at the same time a 
friend of tlie Union. Whenever southern rights 
and southern honor are invaded, I am ready, at all 
hazards, to defend them; but you would not have 
me renounce my attachment to the Union, and 
hazard the inheritiince of my children by foment- 
ing sectional dissensions, for nothing. I must , 
have a larger stake than you hold out to me in j 
this concerd before I denationalize myself, humble 
as I am. 

But in what'have the North repudiated the com- 
promise of 1820? Have they not a majority of 
fifty-four votes over the South in Congress? And 
yet I aver, and I appeal to the record to sustain 
the truth of the averment, that the North have j 
never attempted to repeal the act of 1820. True, \ 
'they have refused to make a similar bargain in ' 
reference to the Territory of Oregon, and the ter- I 
ritory acquired from Mexico; but is it a repudia- 
tion of the Missouri compromise simply to refuse 
to make a similar contract twenty or thirty years • 
afterwards, and in relation to newly acquired ter- 
ritory? To illustrate this idea, suppose I buy a : 
tract of land of a neighbor, and thirty years after- 
wards I propose to make a similar contract for i 
another tract of land, and he declines it; is that 
a repudiation of the former bargain, and does his \ 
refusal relea^^e me legally or morally from theobli- ' 
gations of the first contract? I think not. i 

But it is also said that the act of 1820 was vio- 1 
■Jatsd by the North in 1821, when Missouri pre- 1 



I sented her constitution for admission into the Union 
as a State. Let us look for a moment at that. 
I The Constitution of the United States secures 
' equality among the citizens of the several States. 
Missouri had a clause in her constitution prohib- 
j iting free negroes and mulattoes from emigrating 
to the State. In several of the States free negroes 
I were citizens, and itwas insisted, in 1821, by many 
; northern members of Congress, that that restric- 
' tion in the constitution of Missouri was in conflict 
I with the Constitution of the United States. It 
was removed, and Missouri was admitted into the 
Union. All who have familiarized themselves 
I with the debates of that day, knowihat the resist- 
ance to the admission of Missouri in 1821, was 
caused by that clause in her constitution to which 
I have adverted, and nofbecause her constitution 
admitted slavery. It is also said that the North 
resisted the admission of Arkansas because of the 
j slavery clause in her constitution. That is un- 
true in point of fact. No such opposition was 
I made. There was a clause in her constitution 
forbidding the Legislature to pass emancipation 
laws, and that was one ground of northern oppo- 
sition; but that was not the main objection. 
Arkansas and Michigan were both admitted into 
the Union in 1836. ' Mr. Van Buren was then a 
candidate for the Presidency, and he and his party 
friends were urgent that those States should be 
admitted, in order that he might receive their 
electoral votes. The opposition, embracing ultra 
southern men, resisted it upon party grounds; and 
the admission v.'as claimed by the Washington 
Globe, then the organ of General Jackson, as a 
party triumph. To be assured that the question 
of slavery had nothing to do with the resistance 
to the admission of Arkansas into the Union, you 
need only be informed that the same opposition 
was made to the admission of Michigan as a free 
State. Hear what the Globe of that day says 
upon the subject: 

" It gives us pleasure to announce that tlie bills to ;idmit 
Michigan and Arkansas into the Union have passed the 
Senate. There was a hard struggle on the part of the op- 
position to prevent the admission of Micliigan. This was 
a stroke at both Territories. If the application of Michi- 
gan had been defeated, having nearly double the population 
of Arkansas, it would have followed inevitably that both 
applications would have been rejected. The repugnance of 
the opposition to the admission-of these new States arises 
from a knowledge that it tveakens their strength in the next 
presidential election and their dwindling phalanx in the 
Senate." — Washington Globe of Jlpril 5, 1836. 

But we are told that the act of 1820 is uncon- 
stitutional and void. If so, why disturb it, as it 
must be perfectly harmless? The men of 1820, 
who voted for it under oath to support the Con- 
stitution, did not believe they were committing 
perjury. President Monroe, a southern slave- 
holder, who approved and signed it by the advice 
of an enlightened Cabinet, did not regard it as 
unconstitutional; nor did the country, which has 
acquiesced in it for a third of a century, so consider 
it; nor did the various Congresses which have 
repeatedly, as I have shown, froin time to time, 
proposed its reenactment, backed by nearly the 
entire South. 

But it has been strongly argued here that the 
act of 1820 is unconstitutional, because it violates 
that article of the treaty of 1803 by which France 
ceded Louisiana to the United States, guarantying 
the protection of the persons and property of the 
citizens in the ceded territory. It is contended 



that the treaty being, under the Constitution, the 
supreme law of the land, it could not be super- 
seded by a mere legislative act, limiting slavery to 
a particular geographical line. 1 wish now to 
shov/ that those who take this view of the ques- 
tion cannot consistently support this bill. If, 
sir, the Congress of 1820 had no constitutional 
power to limit slavery to the line of 36° 30', be- ; 
cause it was in violation of the treaty of cession, 
then the Congress of 1854, sitting under the same | 
Constitution, can have no power to repeal all the 
French and Spanish laws authorizing slavery in ; 
this Territory, and much less the clause in the 
treaty with France which protects slavery, yet 
this is what the Badger amendment to this bill 
actually does. Here then we have presented this ] 
absurdity: the friends of the bill assert that the ' 
Missouri compromise was unconstitutional and \ 
void, because itviolated theprovisions of a treaty, j 
which is the supreme law of the land, and they ' 
therefore insert a provision repealing the Mis- { 
souri compromise; but, at the same time, they i 
support the Badger amendment, which provides 
that nothing contained in the bill shall be so con- 
strued as to revive or put in force any law or 
regulation which may have existed prior to the act ; 
of 6th March, 1820, either protecting, establishing, i 
prohibiting, or abolishing slavery. Who does 
not see that that Badger amendment abolishes 
slavery in these Territories as effectually as did 
the compromise act of 1820, and tha't if the act 
of 1820 was unconstitutional, this bill must be 
unconstitutional for the same reason; for there ■ 
is intervention by Congress in both cases, and 
exactly to the same extent. The act of 1820 pro- 
hibited slavery north of 36° 30', where it was 
formerly allowed by law and treaty; and the act - 
of 1854, if this bill becomes a law, after repealing 
the act of 1820, proceeds to abolish slavery in the 
sam.e territory. It is true that the bill provides ' 
that the question whether slave-y shall hereafter 
be established in this territory shall be decided 
by the future inhabitants of the Territories, but ' 
the Badger amendment takes away all protection ; 
to the property of the citizens of the South emi- j 
grating with their slaves to this Territory, by 
nullifying the treaty and laws which, after the I 
repeal of the Missouri compromise, would have ; 
been in force, and would have protected slave 
property. And this is called ?io?i-i)j<erreniion .' \ 

But we are told that all this is necessary, in | 
order to assimilate the bill to the legislation of 
1850. I will show that there is a wide discrep- j 
ancy between the measures of 1850 and what is 
proposed by this bill. The measures of 1850 left 
untouched the Mexican laws prohibiting slavery ' 
in the territory acquired from Mexico, whilst this 
bill, I again repeat, repeals, under the pretext of: 
non-intervention, the compromise act of 1820, the ' 
French laws, and the treaty of 1803; and it pro- i 
poses to repeal the Constitution itself, if, as some : 
contend, the Constitution, ;)ro;)?-Jo rigoj-e, extended • 
its protection to the property of the slaveholder to 
all new territory the moment it became territory 
of the United States. 

But we are told that all this is necessary to create 
a tabula rasa, upon which the Legislature of the 
Territory may write its own unrestrained will on 
the ^question of slavery or no slavery. I desire 
the country, and the South particularly, to un- 
derstand that this dangerous and unprecedented 



intervention by Congress is considered necessary 
to give effect to the principle of "squatter sover- 
eignty," which is clearly contained in the bill. 
Let it not be forgotten that every existing guar- 
antee, by law oc treaty, by which slavery, after 
the repeal of the act of 1820, could be maintained 
in these Territories is carefully annulled and re- 
pealed, in order to give full and free scope to the 
principle of "squatter sovereignty;" when all who 
have examined the subject must know that the 
first enactment of the Territorial Legislature will 
prohibit slavery forever. But to render this power 
of "squatter sovereignty" complete, this bill de- 
prives Congress of any supervisory control over 
the acts of the Territorial Legislature; whereas 
such control was retained in the territorial acts 
of 1850. Yet all this is done, or pretended to be 
done, in order to carry out and perpetuate the 
principles contained in the compromise measures 
of 1850! 

Sir, it is downright political profanity to assert 
that this bill is founded on the doctrine of non- 
intervention by Congress in the legislation of the 
Territories on the subject of slavery, as contained 
in the actS of 1850. I heartily subscribe to the 
principle of non-intervention incorporated in the 
measures of 1850, and to the propriety of treating 
the Territories as the wards of the Federal Gov- 
ernment, as I believe they have heretofore been 
treated. I appeal to the distinguished gentleman 
from Missouri, if such has not been the uniform 
practice of the Government. 

Mr. BENTON. Yes, sir, as children under age, 

Mr. CULLOM. We retain a supervisory con- 
trol over their territorial proceedings, but when 
they have become of age, and have assumed their 
full rights of sovereignty by the act of forming 
their State constitution, then I am in favor of leav- 
ing them perfectly free to express their own un- 
restricted will on the subject of slavery, and on all 
other subjects not inconsistent with the Federal 
Constitution. These are the principles of the 
measures of 1850. This is the true popular sov- 
ereignty which is recognized by the Constitution 
— the non-intervention to which I subscribe. Sir, 
this bill presents the doctrine of the Nicholson 
letter written by General Cass in 1848, and against 
which Tennessee recorded her verdict. I stand 
now upon the same impregnable ground that I 
stood upon than. 

But I have been told over and over again, that 
the bill establishes a great principle. 1 ask what 
principle.' You can find no five men in Congress, 
even among the friends of the measure, who can 
agree as to the principles it does establish. The 
language of the bill is so subtle, circumlocutory, 
and tautological, that it seems to have been in- 
tended to bear a construction to suit any meridian. 
If it is necessary to lay down a great principle, 
would it not be becoming in Congress to strip it of 
all ambiguity, and to lay dov/n that naked principle 
so clearly that the country and future Congresses 
may be enabled to know what it is r For if we 
cannot agree what the principle is, how can it have 
any practical operation now or at any future time.' 
Posterity can derive no benefit from the principle 
of the bill, for if they should turn to the debates 
in Congress, and see the Bable-like confusion 
of opinions contemporaneously expressed, gross 
darkness would cover the people. So much for 
your great principle. 



10 



But I have asked, and I repeat the question, 
what does this measure propose to give my geo- 
graphical section of the country ? We remove 
the Missouri restriction, say they, and thus place 
the South where she stood before it was imposed. 
Very v/ell, that is very kind to Ihe South, but let 
me ask if you have not been still more generous 
to the North ? You have removed the restriction 
of 1820. That is cheering to the South. But 
you step behind the act of 1820, with your Bad- 
ger amendment, and, to tickle the North, you re- 
peal the French laws and the treaty guaranties, 
and leave the South without any protection to its 
slave property, which you say cannot be main- 
tained v/ithout the .sanction of local law; and 
having stripped the southern slaveholders of all 
legal protection, you hand us over to the tender 
mercies of squatter sovereigns for legislative pro- 
tection. This indeed would be a barren victory. 
Thus, after all, your patriotic and generous pro- 
fessions, you would feed the South on chaff — yes, 
on husks. 

But we are told that it is necessary to take this 
•vexed question of slavery out of the hands of Con- 
gress, and many deny that Congress has any 
power over the subject in the Territories; and yet 
they would delegate power to legislate upon it to 
the infant Territories. This idea of conferring a 
greater power upon the agent than the principal 
possessor is indeed a new one; but is it a great or 
wise principle, or one that will be of any practical 
use to the South? Can any sound southern man 
think so.' Sir, there never was a greater cheat 
than this bill is. It is a miserable humbug Well 
might Franklin Pierce, who is urging its passage, 
declare, as he did to Senators James and Clem- 
ens, that if this bill should pass, we should never 
have another slave State though we should absorb 
the whole of Mexico; and that the bill was ^nove- 
ment in favor of freedom. What do you tnink of 
that, I ask you, who regarded him as having such 
a love for southern interests when he was a candi- 
date for the Presidency? Well may the Detroit 
Free Press proclaim to the country that — 

" Mr. Douglas 's bill is the greatest advance movement in 
the direction of human freedom, that has ever been made 
since the adoption of the Constitution. Never before [it 
goes on] have the rights of all American communities to 
self governnieDt been fully recognized. The people of the 
Territories have hitherto been held to a species of vassalage 
not less huinilialiMg to them than it was inconsistent with 
popular rights. They have not been permitted to make 
their own laws, or to manage their own domestic concerns. 
They have been treated as minors, incompetent to take care 
of themselves. Mr. Douglas's bill changes all this. The 
Territories have the same privileges in relation to domestic 
legislation as the States." 

Yet with all these evidences before me, and 
many more which I have not time now to enumer- 
ate, I am gravely asked to stultify myself by sup- 
porting this as a great southern measure ! I repeat, 
that it is a fraud upon all latitudes, and, in the 
language of Lord Coke, •' hatched in a hollow 
tree." 

But, sir, if I may be pardoned for further pur- 
suing this miserable device, it is susceptible of 
the clearest demonstration that the inen of 1850 
thought that they had forever shut down the flood- 
gates of agitation upon the question of slavery. 
Mr. Clay, when he brought forward his great 
measures of comproinise in 1850, announced that 
there were five bleeding wounds in the body-pol- 
itic which those measures were intended to, and 



did heal. So the country thought, and proclaimed 
their finality, it was left to these latter-day poli- 
ticians, for purposes not consistent with the pub- 
lic interest, to reopen another wound that had 
been cicatrized by the healing measure of 1820, 
which they say does not harmonize with the le- 
gislation of 1850. Now, if ail the past legislation 
of the country is to be moulded into the fashion of 
the acts of 1850, there are still "five bleeding 
wounds." Why not heal them all with one ap- 
plication ? Why apply your quack panacea to the 
actof 1820, and leave the Territories of Minnesota, 
Oregon, Washington, and, part of the original 
Texas Territory under the curse of the Wilmot 
proviso ? The acts by which that proviso was in- 
grafted on those Territories are more recent and less 
sanctified by the lapse of time, than the Missouri 
compromise is. They are bleeding wounds upon 
the body-politic as much as the act of 1820 is. But 
they are to be left to bleed until some far-seeing 
politician, in order to make some political capital 
hereafter, shall undertake to heal them. Why, 
sir, did not even southern Democrats vote for the 
Oregon bill? And did not a southern President 
[Mr. Polk] approve it upon the ground, that al- 
though that Territory was not, in terms, embraced 
in the act of 1820, yet as it was territory lying 
north of the line of 36° 30', he thought it fell under 
the principles of the Missouri compromise? In his 
message to Congress approving the Oregon bilL 
Mr. Polk, in alluding to the controversy whioir 
was settled by the Missouri compromise, used the 
following language: 

" But the good genius of conciliation which presided at 
the birth of our institutions finally prevailed, and the Mis^ 
souri compromise was adopted." ***** 
''This compromise had the effect of calming the troubled 
waves, and restoring peace and good will throughout the 
States of the Union," 

Ah ! sir, Mr. Polk tells you that the good genius 
which presided at the birth of American liberty 
and independence presided over the deliberations 
of the Congress of 1820, when passing the com- 
promise, which we are now asked to break down. 
One would suppose, from the frightful givings-out 
of the friends of this Nebraska project, that a fiend 
of hell had presided on that occasion. We are 
also told now that the South has been writhing 
under it as a mighty infliction. And yet Mr. 
Polk says, that " this compromise had the effect 
of calming the troubled waves and restoring peace 
and good will throughout the States of the Union. " 
And so it did; and who dare now disturb it? 
Again: Mr. Polk, in the saine message, used the 
following language: 

" The Missouri question had excited intense agitation 
in the public mind, and threatened to divide the country 
into geographical parties, alienating the feelings of attach- 
ment which each portion of the Union should tJear to every 
other. The compromise allayed the excitement, tranquil- 
ized the popular mind, and restored confidence and frater- 
nal feeling. Its authors were hailed as public benefactors. 
Ought we now to disturb the Missouri and Texas compro- 
mises .' Ought we, at this late day, in attempting to annul 
what has been so long established and acquiesced in, to 
excite sectional divisions and jealousies, to alienate the 
people of difierent portions of the Union f^rom each other, 
and to endanger the existence of the Union itself?" 

I leave the American people to answer the 
grave and momentous question thus propounded 
by President Polk. It is addressed to them; I 
await their decision. 

I^ut, sir, gentlemen continue to ring the changes 



11 



upon the legislation of 1850, which, they say, 
makes it absolutely imperative upon us to break 
up this ancient settlement of 1820, and put it 
into the mould of the acts of 1850. Let me 
inquire of those friends of the Nebraska bill, 
why that idea did not occur to them at the last 
session of Congress, when we organized the Ter- 
ritory of Washington? It seems to me that that 
would have been a very appropriate time to have 
placed these Territories on the Procrustean bed of 
1850. You were then fresh from the great conflict 
of 1850. The principle's of your legislation were 
at least as well understood then as they are now. 
Then you were associated with many of the very 
men who took part in that conflict. But not a 
whisper was then heard of the principles of 1850. 
You slept at your posts, and let the bill, with the 
Wilmot proviso attached, quietly and silently pass 
both branches of Congress. But you may say 
that the Territory of Washington was a part of 
Oregon, and was therefore placed under the Wil- 
mot proviso during Mr. Polk's administration, 
when the Territory of Oregon was organized, and 
must follow the condition of Oregon. 1 answer, 
that if Congress had not the power, as you as- 
sume, to impose a restriction upon slavery, or if, 
having the power, it was such a gross abuse in 
1820 to limit slavery in the Territory of Louisi- 
ana to the line of 36° 30', as to make it the duty 



upon the Missouri compromise, as their ^iltim a turn, 
and declared that the acts of 1850 should be as- 
similated to the act of 1820! Now, the act of 
1820 has become such an abomination, that it 
must be no longer allowed to stain the purity of 
our legislation. The country can see and under- 
stand all this. The country must apply the cor- 
rective. The people desire quiet and repose; dem- 
agogues prefer a storm — yes, sir, a hobby, a 
humbug, upon which to ride into jiower. 

I have already shown that the compromise of 
1820 was passed by southern votes; and the com- 
mittee will bear with me whilst I recapitulate the 
names and residences of those patriots who are 
now unblushingly charged with having betrayed 
the South by a base surrender of her rights. I 
begin with my own State. I find upon the .Jour- 
nals of the Senate, the name of John Williams, 
of East Tennessee, than whom a purer patriot 
never lived; after enjoying the public confidence 
for a long period, he now rests with his fathers, 
embalmed in the memory of all who knew him. 
He voted for the compromise of 1820. His col- 
league in the Senate, John H. Eaton, likewise 
voted for it, and he was then, and for many years 
afterwards, the confidential friend of General Jack- 
son. His vote in favor of the Missouri compro- 
mise furnishes strong presumptive evidence that 
General Jackson approved the policy of it. Mr. 



of this Congress to repeal that restriction, and re- ' Eaton was afterwards a member of General Jack- 



store the South to her rights, then could the Con 
gress of 1848, by legislative enactment in the form 
of the Wilmot proviso, prohibit slavery forever 
in the Territory of Oregon ? The power was the 
same in both cases. 

But, sir, 1 must be allowed to bring one other 
important fact to the recollection of the commit- 
tee. This Nebraska question was up at the last 
session of Congress. The bill then before us, 
proposed merely to organize a territorial govern- 
ment, without making any mention of slavery, or 
so much as intimating a repeal of the Missouri 
compromise. 

Tlie bill in that form passed this House, and it 
received the votes of three of my colleagues, to 
wit: Mr. Johnson, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Wil- 
liams, who were all in the Congress of 1850, and 
all supported the compromise measures of that 
Congress; but neither they, nor — so far as I saw 
or heard — any other member here, offered, or 
thought of offering, to make that bill conform to 
the legislation of 1850, by repealing the Missouri 
compromise. Well, sir, after that bill passed the 
House, it went to the Senate, and was there re- 
ferred to the Committee on Territories, Mr. Doug- 
las being then , as now, the chairman of that com- 
mittee, and extraordinary as it must appear to all 
Christendom, the idea never entered the brain of 
the chairman of the committee at that time, that 
it was proper or important to assert the princi- 
ples of the acts of 1850. This is so extraordinary 
that I fear the country will come to the conclu- 
sion that all this parade now about the principles 
of 1850, is a mere after-thought. One other fact 
is quite remarkable, and that is that most, if not 
all, of the States-Right and Secession men of the 
South v/ho condemned the compromise of 1850 as 
a gross outrage upon the rights of the South, and 
all who subscribed to the doctrines of the Nash- 
ville convention, which met after the adoption of 
the compromise measures, planted themselves 



son 's Cabinet, and was subsequently our Minister 
to Spain. Surely he would not have been so hon- 
ored, if his vote upon the Missouri compromise 
had been considered an act of treachery to south- 
ern interests. In the vote of this House 1 find 
the name of John Cocke, whose friendship, I am 
proud to say, I enjoyed for many years, and 
until his death. He was long honored with a seat 
upon this floor, after the passage of the act of 
1820, and repeatedly served in the Legislature of 
Tennessee, over the House of Representatives of 
which he was more than once chosen to preside. 
There, too, stands enrolled, in favor of tliis act of 
1820, the name of Robert Allen, late of my own 
county, a name sacred in the memory of Tennes- 
seeans. When the battle raged, he was foremost 
in the fight, ready to die, if need be, in defense of 
his country. For eight years he was an honored 
memberofthis House; and, at a later period, he 
was a prominent member of the convention which 
framed the present constitution of Tennessee. He 
died lamented by the v/hole country, and sleeps 
interred in sight of my humble home. He was 
kind to me in life, and I will vindicate his mem- 
ory from the aspersions now attempted to be cast 
upon his judgment, and his fidelity to the South, 
in voting for the Missouri compromise. Newton 
Cannon also voted for this old compromise, now 
so much derided and denounced. He was after- 
wards Governor of the State, and now sleeps in 
an honorable grave. Sir, I am now asked, before 
the sod is dry over the graves of some of these 
pure men, to repudiate their act, and to join in 
the hue and cry which has been raised against 
the act of 1820. And why am I called upon to 
denounce that measure.' Is it for the good of my 
country ? I am sure it is not for its honor. No, 
sir, it is to pander to the selfish ambition of 
scheming politicians. Sir, sooner than betray 
my country; sooner than disparage or traduce 
the good names of the dead, who in life stood by 



12 



me closer tlian brothers — the dead whose lives 
were devoted to patriotism and their country — 
let my right hand forget its cunning. 

Turning next to my mother State, Kentucky — 
for, although many years have passed since I left 
her soil, still she is my mother State, and I love 
her — in the Senate, I find the names of Logan 
and Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky, recorded 
in favor of the compromise of 1820. Richard M. 
Johnson, long after the country had sat in judg- 
ment upon that vote, filled the office of Vice Pres- 
ident of the United States. Of the members of 
the House from Kentucky who voted for the com- 
promise of 1820, I find the names of Anderson, 
Brown, Ben Hardin, McLean, duarles, Robert- 
Bon, and Trimble. Only one member from that 
State voted against it. One illustrious name does 
not appear on the record — that of Henry Clay. 
He was then Speaker, and was not allowed, by the 
rules of the House, to vote, except when his vote 
would decide a question. But who can doubt 
upon which side his name would have been re- 
corded, had he been called upon to decide that 
question? So conspicuous was his course and in- 
fluence in favor of the comprom.ise, that the Senator 
from Illinois, in the speech 1 have before referred 
to, tells us that he won the proud sobriquet of 
the " Great Pacificator." But, in the face of all 
these facts, we are told that this compromise was 
forced on the South. Sir, there were but three 
votes against it from the two States of Kentucky 
and Tennessee. Letthatbe remembered in those 
proud States. Sir, Kentucky is now laudably 
engaged in erecting a suitable monument to the 
memory of her disiinguished son, a nation's fa- 
vorite — Henry Clay. Of all the laurels won by 
that illustrious man, in his long and glorious ca- 
reer in the service of his country, his successful 
advocacy of the Missouri compromise stands out 
at the head of the list, and none will be more im- 
perishable. But while the monumental pile is yet 
unfinished, which the State he so much adorned 
in his life is now erecting to commemorate his 
eminent services, a parricidal attempt is made to 
rob him of the honor of one of his greatest and 
most memorable achievements. 

But, sir, it would be invidious to speak of 
Kentucky and Tennessee alone. Allow me to 
lay beffrre the con)mittee the long list of illustrious 
names which stand recorded in favor of the com- 
promise of 1820 from other southern States. 

The following is a list of the yeas from the 
South in the Senate: 



Ringgold, of Maryland, 
Robertson, ot Kentucky, 
Settle, of North Carolina, 
Sinilll, of Maryland, 
Sinitl), of North Carolina, 
Strother, of Virginia, 
Trimble, of Kentucky, 
Tucker, of S. Carolina, 
Warfield, of Maryland, 
Williams, of N. Carolina. 



Brown, of Louisiana, 
Barbour, of Virginia," 
Eaton, of Tennessee, 
Elliott, of Georgia, 
Horsey, of Delaware, 
Johnson, of Kentuckyj 
Johnson, ofLouisiana, 
King, of Alabama, 
Gailliard, of S. Carolina, 
Leake, of Mississippi, 



Lloyd, of Maryland, 
Logan, of Kentucky, 
Pleasants, of Virginia, 
Walker, of Georgia, 
Williams, of Mississippi, 
Pinkney, of Maryland, 
Stokes, of North Carolina, 
Van Dyke, of Delaware, 
Walker, of Alabama, 
Williams, of Tennessee. 



The following is a list of the yeas in the House 
of Representatives: 



Allen, of Tennessee, 
Anderson, of Kentucky, 
Archer, ot Maryland, 
Bayly, of Maryland, 
Brevard, of S. Carolina, 
Brown, of Kentucky, 
Bryan, of Tennessee, 
Cannon, of Tennessee, 
Cocke, of Tennessee, 



Crawford, of Georgia, 
Crowell, of Alabama, 
Culbreth, of Maryland, 
Culpeper, of N. Carolina, 
Cuthbcrt, of Georgia, 
Davidson, of N. Carolina, 
Earle, of S. Carolina, 
Fisher, of N. Carolina, 
Floyd, of Virginia, 



Hardin, of Kentucky, 
Keiu, of Maryland, 
Little, of Maryland, 
Lowndes, of S. Carolina, 
McCreary, of S. Carolina, 
McLane, of Delaware, 
McLean, of Kentucky, 
Mercer, of Virginia, 
Nelson, of Virginia, 
Quarles, of Kentucky, 
Rankin, of Mississippi, 

Yet, sir, we are gravely told, in effect, that the 
men of to-day are more capable of guarding the 
honor of the South, and the peace and welfare of 
the country, than were the men of 1820. Let the 
country judge between them. 

The gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. 
Clinginiax,] who came forward the other day as 
the defender of the author of this bill, and of the 
present Administration, told us in the course of 
his speech that he had been living for several years 
past outside of any healthy political ori;;anizauon. 

Mr. CLINGMAN. I did not say healthful 
political organization. 

Mr. CULLOM. Well, sir, in my opinion, he 
is a very proper person to defend this Adminis- 
tration, being an outsider, [laughter;] for I am sure 
that no man within the pale of a healthy organi- 
zation would think of undertaking such a job. 
[Renewed laughter.] The gentleman also told us, 
in a tone of complaint, that the ministers of the 
Gospel had sent him sundry sermons. Now, if 
there should be any minister of the Gospel within 
hearing of my voice, let me tell them that it is 
love's labor lost to send sermons to the gentleman 
from North Carolina; what he most needs in his 
lonely, outside condition, is prayers, and very 
many of them. [Much laughter.] But I cannot 
dwell upon this topic. 

Sir, I regret that gentlemen, in their zeal to press 
this measure through the House, are even pre- 
pared, in the extremity, to which they arereduced, 
to pervert the truth of history. They seek the 
benefit of the prestige of the sainted patriotof Ash- 
land, Henry Clay, in support of this bill. Would 
to God, sir, that his tall and graceful form were 
now before you. Would that he were alive and 
standing erect before you, in the full possession of 
those high and noble faculties which were so suc- 
cessfully employed in 1820, in hushing the rising 
tempest of national discord, to maintain the honor 
of the South and viiidicate his own, in opposition 
to this most mi.schievous measure. Methinks 
that when he had arrayed the facts and history of 
the times, out of which the Missouri compromise 
arose, his eagle eye would have scanned this as- 
sembly, and his finger would have been pointed 
significantly at those who have undertaken to sep- 
arate his name from the band of illustrious patriots 
who, at that critical juncture, averted from their 
country the threatened evils of anarchy and civil 
war; and I think I can see them now, to borrow 
the language of another, " leaping from the win- 
dows in dismay, to escape the withering invec- 
tive of his inspired and indignant eloquence." 

Sir, I was mortified, as a Kentuckian — for 1 am 
proud to claim that great Commonwealth as my 
birth-place, and take a lively interest in her fame, 
as I did in the life and fortunes of her most re- 
nowned son — I say I was mortified when 1 heard, 
the other day, the talented gentleman from Ken- 
tucky, [Mr. Breckimridge,] representing, as he 
does, the Ashland district, coming into this Hall, 



IB 



accredited by the choice of such a district, and 
charged with the defense and protection of the 
memory of one so dear to his constituents and to 
the whole American people, so far forget himself 
and the proprieties of t!ie hour, as to say that Mr. 
Clay could not be claimed as a supporter of the 
compromise of 1820; that it was even doubtful 
whether he voted for it; and seeking to appropri- 
ate the iniluence of his great name to this most 
discreditable work of repudiation. Then, thought 
I to myself, truly what dangerous things old doc- 
uments are. Let me read you a passage from the 
speech of the gentleman from Kentucky. I regret 
that he is not now in his seat, that his recollection 
might be a little refreshed: 

" I have Iie.'ird," said he, " gentlrinon liero glorify Mr. 
Clay as tlie author of the act of IS'iO, prohibiting slavery 
north of 36° 30', and invoke his memory to resist its viola- 
tion. They must invoke some other spirit than Mr. Clay's, 
lor he was not its author." 

Sir, [ was one of those who were permitted to 
stand by the bier of Henry Clay. The scene is 
fresh in my memory, when we followed the slow 
and mouriiful procession which bore his lifeless 
corpse to this Capitol. All nature seemed clad in 
the weeds of mourning as far as the eye could 
penetrate. This temple was veiled in the habili- 
ments of woe. The sun of heaven seemed as if 
it shone dimly. Every heart was wrung with the 
most poignant grief. That scene I never shall 
forget. Upon the honorable gentleman from the 
Ashland district [Mr. Breckinridge] devolved 
the soleam duty of announcing Mr. Clay's death 
to this House, which he did in a most eloquent 
oration, highly creditable both to his head and to 
his heart. What he said made a deep impression 
upon me. It has been said that death makes 
cowards of us all. It may be said with equal 
truth that death makes us all honest for the time 
being. We are all honest when standing by the 
icy form of the illustrious dead. Party feeling 



and all schemes of political ambition are then put 
far away from us. We then, above all other 
times, speak thetruth. The eloquent Kentuckian, 
standing as it were in the presence of the mortal 
remains of the illustrious sage of Ashland, thus 
spoke his eulogy: 

'•■ Inseparably associated, as his name has been for fifty 
years, with every great event affecting the fnrtunes of our 
country, it is difficult to realize that ho is indeed gone for- 
ever. It is difticult to feel that we shall see no more his 
noble form witliin these walls ; that we shall hear no more 
his patriot tones, now rousing his countrymen^o vindicate 
their rights against a foreign foe, now imploring them to 
preserve concord among tliemselves. We shall see him 
no more, The memory and the fruits of his services alone 
remain to us. Amidst the general gloom, the Capitol 
itself looks desolate, as if the genius of the place had de- 
parted." * * **"**«** 
" But the supremacy of Mr. Clay as a party leader was not 
his only, nor his. highest, title to renown. That title is to 
be found in the piirely patriotic spirit which on great occa- 
sions always signalized his conduct. We have had no 
statesman who, in periods of real and imminent public peril, 
has exhibited a more genuine and eidargcd patriotism than 
HenryClay. Whenever a question.presented itself actually 
threatening the existence of the Union, Mr. Clay, rising 
above the passions of the hour, always exerted bis powers 
to solve it peacefully and honorably. Although more liable 
than most men, from his impetuous and ardent nature, to 
feel strongly the passions common to us all, It was his rare 
faculty to be able to subdue them in a great crisis, and to 
hold towards all sections of the Confederacy the language 
of concord and l)rotherhood. Sir, it will be a proud pleasure 
to every true American heart to remember the great occa- 
sions when Mr. Clay has displayed a sublime patriotism; 
when the ill temper engendered by the times, and the mis- 
erable jealousies of the day, seemed to have been driven 
from his bosom by the expulsive power of nobler feelings ; 
when every throb of his heart was given to his country, 
every effort of his intellect dedicated to her service. Who 
does not remember the period when the American system 
of government was exposed to its severest trials ; and who 
does not know that when history shall relate the struggles 
which preceded and the dangers which were averted by the 
Missouri comi-ko.mise, the tarifTcompromise of 18.32, and 
the adjustment of 1850, the same pages will record the 
genius, the eloquence, and the patriotism of Henry Clay." 

[Great applause.] 



9 



U 9X8 Z.68 110 



ssaaoNoo do Aijuaain 



